: Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated
General BBC-related comment thread
Bookmark the permalink.
Hillhunt: From previous thread: “Don’t recall ever reading a piece as detailed as the BBC ECU’s about the failings of any rival media organisation…”
Not sure how much detail you need to conclude that before you tell a press conference the head of state threw a hissy fit it’s worth double checking. But that’s not my point: If there is even a vague suspicion an incident occurred because of a bias within the organisation then hiring someone who used to work there to investigate it doesn’t seem too thorough. In light of that, you can’t really be surprised if people aren’t too convinced by the efficacy of the BBC’s self-regulation.
For the sake of Anglo American relations and my own sanity I’m petitioning the BBC to recall Matt Frei. Not since your troops burned the White House, have we had a more unwelcome “visitor”, or should I say migrant.
New election bumper sticker –
Monica Lewinsky’s
ex-boyfriends wife
for president
I think more and more Americans are starting to recognise the BBC’s anti-American bias.
Good. Personally I think they should band the organisation.
I can’t work out who’s worse: the slimey Frei or the patronising Webb?
Frei is grim. Could he be sent to Guantanamo to do some much needed investigatiuve reporting – for about five years?
Frei, Harrabin and Shukman. One way tickets on the Titanic would be too good for those three muppets.
Actually I find Webb worse than Frei. Always so pleased with himself for managing to reveal the inherent inadequcy of Americans. Ghastly.
I encourage readers to TELL their American friends about the vile prejudice of the BBC. A few gun-nuts from Tennessee should put both of them in their place.
Well, Webb’s a self-confessed product of his upbringing – parents CND-ers, reflexively anti-American. No wonder he gets the Washington gig. Just don’t expect too much context.
Funny they send Europhiles like Dymond
and Mardell to the EU. But anti Americans to the USA.
Can’t think why!
David Vance, Martin, Dr R:
Frei, Harrabin and Shukman. One way tickets on the Titanic would be too good for those three muppets.
I encourage readers to TELL their American friends about the vile prejudice of the BBC. A few gun-nuts from Tennessee should put both of them in their place.
Frei is grim. Could he be sent to Guantanamo to do some much needed investigatiuve reporting – for about five years?
Excellent.
If there’s one thing that’s helpful in putting the BBC’s alleged failings into perspective, it’s the kind of balanced, impartial and fair-minded people who gleefully incite psychotic gunmen, an icy drowning and detention without trial for those they disagree with.
Biased BBC: The Sopranos. Without The Charm.
Hillhunt,
But but — I know how the BBC is so interested in Gitmo and who better than the impartial balanced Frei to go and do a job there?
PS. Full moon tonight?
Oh my God Hillhunts back!
Hillhunt
Never underestimate the loathing many people have for the despicable BBC.
Nor the fact that they have to pay for the despicable BBC on pain of prison.
Alright Hillhunt, these BBC guys can have a fair trial by all means.
Then it’ll be time for the psychotic gunmen, icy drowning, detention etc etc
Dr R:
Never underestimate the loathing many people have for the despicable BBC.
Indeed, indeed.
And there’s no finer place to start when sizing up a leading broadcaster’s trustworthiness than announcing it’s a despicable institution which many people loath…
Coming later:
The Nobel Panel considers the merits of that tosser Mandela.
Atonement? All right if you like that kind of bilge, says Bafta chairman.
The Arctic Monkeys? Sooner saw my own leg off, says Mercury prize judge…
Biased BBC: The Sky Is Green
BBC can do some unbiased, non-patronizing and informative reporting when it chooses to do so:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7228566.stm
This article is an example that there are people within the BBC that know the difference between news reporting and editorial propaganda. The article is not mixing news with editorials and is not trying to influence the reader with contorted sentences and inserts like “rare suicide attack”, or “indirect rocket fire”. Or by adding unrelated propaganda “context”.
In this article after we are given the information, it is left to the reader to judge the morality of the sides. Thank you BBC for not patronizing in at least this one article.
It is true that the article is titled “Israel kills six in Gaza”, but if yesterday’s article was titled “Palestinian suicide bomber kills one in Israel”, I would consider it acceptable. Of course, the article yesterday was “Rare suicide bombing hits Israel”, as if it were some kind of a “rare” natural disaster. It was later renamed to “Israeli killed in suicide bombing”, still as if suicide bombings are caused by a force of nature (undoubtedly some Beeboids would agree with that).
Still, today’s article contents is a marked improvement over the “rare” article we witnessed yesterday.
Hillhunt
Tell you what, stop forcing people to pay for this lousy, biased cabal of leftist thought police and I’ll stop having a go at them.
Frankly I couldn’t care less what happens to the BBC or its trusted commissars.
Listening to the BBC with half an ear I gained the impression that they have subtly expanded the term “the government”, which I had previously taken to refer to Westminster, to include the supreme government in Europe.
Troll, troll, troll.
So boring.
That Beeb report refers to “Hamas, a militant Islamist group”.
Wonder how long that’ll survive – an obvious candidate for stealth editing, one imagines.
Whooaa – Hillcnut’s been let out of his padded cell.
Has anyone else notice that the BBC continually bang on about recession, interest rates, debt and a failing economy in the USA, but make NO reference to the same thing happening here.
Not wanting to point out that McBean and McLabour are failing perhaps?
Hillhunt! Where have you been?
If you’re sticking around, I hope you’re going to stick to a policy of trying to keep this site honest, rather than just slinging insults.
Did anyone else hear the woman interviewed by Victoria Derbyshire this morning? It was in relation to the “spin story” from Caroline Flint that unemployed people should find work or get booted out of their Council house.
Now Derbyshire is supposed ot be a journalist, yet failed to ask several obvious questions of the woman.
1. The woman lived in a Council house with her three children (17, 10 & 3). She’s NEVER worked. Derbyshire never asked if the children had a father or more likely fathers and why they were not paying towards he upkeep.
2. The woman had a her first kid when she was 17, so why did she keep having more children if she couldn’t afford to bring them up or provide for them?
3. Did the woman not have any family (like her mother) that could care for the younger child whilst she went out to work?
Derbyshire NEVER asked any basic questions, you have to question her ability as a journalist.
Oh and one more point. Look at the ages of the children. Notice anything? As soon as the middle child goes to secondary school the youngest will be at primary school, so she will have the same excuse that she can’t work as she has to pick up her child from school.
I’m betting that a 4th child will be along as soon as the youngest gets to about 7 or 8
ThinAndBritish:
I hope you’re going to stick to a policy of trying to keep this site honest, rather than just slinging insults.
My policy to the letter, friend.
It is time to get these problems with TV News and radio news programmes sorted out.
Every profession in the country such as solicitors, accountants, midwives, nurses, doctors, surveyors has a set of professional standards and a Code of Practice to which they must comply or else suffer professional penalties such as fines or worse.
TV News and radio news is of paramount importance to the life of this society as the vast majority of people get all their political information from them. However the staff of TV News and radio news merely answer to themselves. They are arrogantly misusing their power and think they are untouchable. The current system of control is clearly not working and can be discounted.
What is needed is a modern and legally binding CODE OF PRACTICE for the presentation of news and current affairs programmes.
The Code of Practice will set up a REGISTER OF INTERESTS and all staff involved in the production and presentation of news and current affairs will have to declare any relevant or dubious interests that reflect on their ability to work in such a sensitive operation. .
Without a Code of Practice the staff of these programmes are especially open to corruption and malpractice.
Enough talk – time for action.
.
Nice to see Hillhunt back – nice to know that a few cages are being rattled at the Beeb!
Ajax: Good point. The BBC who be made to declare the political bias of their presenters.
I think it’s wrong that BBC presenters are openly allowed to campaign or fund raise for Mc Labour for example.
We know that several Beeboids are well known McLabour luvvies (Simon Mayo as an example) that have a clear political bias.
The BBC should be forced to employ a balance of people. Why is it the BBC see’s fit to pick a balanced audience for Question Time (although we might argue about that) but no desire to pick a politically balanced workforce?
Reading about Nigel Wrench, makes me glad I’m normal, but then again by BBC standards that would make me abnormal. Think I’ll go for a quick pint.
Dan,
Don’t drink too much in case someone tries to have their evil way with you. 😎
Ajax:
Already in reprint on his Register Of Interests manifesto:
The Code of Practice will set up a REGISTER OF INTERESTS and all staff involved in the production and presentation of news and current affairs will have to declare any relevant or dubious interests that reflect on their ability to work in such a sensitive operation. .
Isn’t this what we all love about the bracing atmosphere of Biased BBC?
Such registers already exist in various places, but most unimaginative authorities only ask for relevant disclosure. Not Ajax.
Oh, no – he wants dubious interests in there as well. Brilliant!
Perhaps B-BBC posters could let us have examples of the dubious interests which should be entered upon this Domesday Book?
I’m already sketching out my list. Let’s hook up later and compare notes!
.
Sorry,
The above is me….
In another example of how the BBC keeps throwing Leftoid correspondents at the US elections, Kevin Connolly lets his bias slip through in his latest report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7227571.stm
Connolly explains how tough each of the remaining Republican candidates have it these days:
The race this year is complicated by the fact that none of the Republican candidates satisfies the party’s core voters on all the three issues which really matter to them – strong national defence, small government with minimal taxation to encourage business, and conservative – preferably Christian – social values on issues like abortion.
The last candidate who scored a perfect 10 on all three was probably Ronald Reagan, who is revered as a kind of patron saint of the American right.
It says much about the state of the party that if he were running in 2008, he would win by a landslide.
So what, exactly, does this say about the “state of the party”? According to Leftoid thought, it says that the party hasn’t “progressed”, no? They still want someone who takes a similar stance to Reagan, who is held in equal esteem by US Leftoids as Baroness Thatcher is by UK Leftoids. In other words, Republican voters are stuck in the past, still trapped in that awful paleo-conservative, preferably Christian, mindset that the modern progressive person has left behind.
How is this not an editorial comment on the Republican Party itself, not to mention a backhanded sleight on a large portion of the American people?
Connolly just can’t help himself, and his editor is blinded by a similar mindset and allows this bias to go to print. This goes hand in hand with the repeated statements from the BBC about what “the world wants”, etc. Come see the bias inherent in the system.
@ Hillhunt
You are a troll. Who is paying you?
This modern and legally binding CODE OF PRACTICE which must be brought in is essential for all the staff on the TV News and radio news programmes to know that their little games of manipulation and twisting are not now to be allowed.
They must now act responsibly and professionally, and indeed, as their predecessors did in earlier years, simply provide us with the information. We can then make up our own minds, thank you.
At the moment these news programmes tell us what to think. I think they should not treat us like children – they really are very patronising. They should stop thinking of themselves as campaigning or educating bodies. They should stop thinking that they are so much more enlightened than their audience who have to retrained by them into the “right” way of thinking on every political subject. That is not their function and this should be explained to them – at the moment they have lost the plot.
The news programmes should also stop thinking of themselves as “entertainment” and “shows”. They are public information services. They do not have to be commercial, their existence will be a contractual duty and requirement under the operator’s licence.
At present there is far too much comment by these people. Under this legally binding CODE OF PRACTICE, they will simply have the duty to provide information so there will be no need for any unelected “political correspondent” having the last word to sneer and devalue the elected politician with his/her own opinions – they are in any case so open to secret influence, corruption and mischief. By their political mischief making they have lost our trust.
There will just be a presenter. Comment will be taken out and put on different programmes – which will also be subject to professional rules.
.
David Preiser: You don’t see the half of it over here from the BBC.
They continually harp on about how bad the US economy is, debt, jobs etc.
However, our economy is just as bad, yet we get no tours of the UK pointing out that McBean and McLabour have totally failed, that McBeans chairmanship of UK PLC has been an utter disaster.
Instead the BBC stick to attacking the USA, where no one will question their lack of balance in their reporting.
Sorry, Ajax, you’ve lost my vote. It doesn’t sound like journalism to me.
Is no radio programmme safe from the extremiist views of Shami Chakrabati from that Communist organisation Liberty? At 4.30 this afternoon she was on “A Good Read” on Radio 4, so I immediately switched off. Could we please have someone from the BNP on a few programmes for a little bit of balance.
News 24 just carried an interview with some loser from the Washinton Post (a bit like the Guardian)
The prat spouted on about how America hates the Republican party blah blah blah and how Hillary is ahead. No mention that most of the Republican party voted ofr the Iraq war…including Hillary. Whoops a little slip there.
Er, except the polls I’ve seen from the US show that given a choice of McCain or Clinton as President McCain is either level or ahead of Clinton.
No mention in the interiew that large parts of America detest Hillary in a way that no other politician is hated.
The thick Beeboid doing the interview never challenged the Washinton Post liberal on this.
Ajax, I like the idea of getting rid of the “educate” bit from “inform, educate and entertain”, though. It’s not the ’50s and, as you say, it might help give the staff there a proper perspective of their role as public servants rather than instructors. It might also help tackle some of the arrogance that seems to problem.
or rather “be a problem.”
Martin:
No mention that most of the Republican party voted ofr the Iraq war…including Hillary. Whoops a little slip there.
Indeed Martin, indeed.
I had previously assumed Hillary shared her husband’s affiliation and belonged to the Democrats.
Good job you spotted The thick Beeboid doing the interview
Thick? That’s not the half of it…
.
@ Hugh
For news programmes there should be information only. No comment.
Comment is for other programmes – again subject to rules as to fairness.
This is not a game. We are a mature democracy but for that to work the information source has to have integrity. Probably 90% of people get all their political information from TV and radio news. If they get manipulated news then democracy is a sham. The Code of Practice will be designed to get the manipulation out of news.
You and I can probably agree on that.
.
Ajax:
Under this legally binding CODE OF PRACTICE, they will simply have the duty to provide information so there will be no need for any unelected “political correspondent” having the last word to sneer and devalue the elected politician with his/her own opinions – they are in any case so open to secret influence, corruption and mischief.
I spend my whole life fearing that I, too, my be open to secret influence, corruption and mischief.
Help us, Ajax. Where do we find this incorruptible posse of information-givers, closed to secret influence, corruption and mischief?
And how many among them will have the fortitude to list their dubious interests, too?
I am trying to be resolute, but I fear that this legion of lionhearts may be a little thin on the ground. Can anyone show us the way?
.
Whoops, OK I own up to that one! Probably due to listening to Ann Coulter saying she’d campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the Republican nomination.
Anyway, you know what I mean, Hillary backed the war in Iraq, she didn’t have to, but when this was discussed in the interview the Beeboid just let it go.
Fact is Hillary is hated by a large number of Americans, but you won’t get that from the BBC.
Martin | 05.02.08 – 8:38 pm |
You don’t see the half of it over here from the BBC.
They continually harp on about how bad the US economy is, debt, jobs etc.
However, our economy is just as bad, yet we get no tours of the UK pointing out that McBean and McLabour have totally failed, that McBeans chairmanship of UK PLC has been an utter disaster.
Instead the BBC stick to attacking the USA, where no one will question their lack of balance in their reporting.
Oh, but I do see or hear much of what the BBC tells you about the US. That’s half the reason I bother commenting here. They try to tell you what to think about us, and at the same time are trying to tell us what to think about ourselves. It’s getting to be disgraceful. They will lie and misrepresent whenever they can, in an attempt to tell you that story which is so important to them. They are story-tellers, not proper journalists.
“They are story-tellers, not proper journalists.”
Hear hear! And given their strange use of words such as ‘rare’ or ‘killed’ when talking about Israeli victims, rubbish at the English language too!
Martin:
Fact is Hillary is hated by a large number of Americans, but you won’t get that from the BBC.
Both barrells, Martin: That’s the only language those Boibeeds understand.
Now let’s see how good you aim is:
What’s this? From December 29:
Critics point out that she has served only as a senator and has held no executive role. They also question her electability – she is a divisive figure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3334839.stm
Divisive, huh? Still, they’re so thick they probably don’t even know what it means…
How about this, then, from last week?
What is going to stand in her way? If Bill Clinton remains a divisive figure in American politics, that goes at least double for Hillary – some estimates say one in three Americans would never vote for her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5006788.stm
Martin, someone’s seriously off-message here and I’m assuming it’s not you. Damn Boibeeds. Never where you want them to be.
.
The BBC,looking down at the plebs and half the story..
Journalism, not ‘churnalism’
Guardian journalist Nick Davies arrives at some damning insights in his new book, Flat Earth News. Many will share his wrath at the “sloppy” and “morally bankrupt” British press – too much of the British press is as bad an anything anywhere else in the world. But he might have come to the right answer for the wrong reasons.
……..
At the BBC College of Journalism, we place the ethics and values of the trade, along with safeguarding the trust of our audiences, far above any technical or editorial skill… one reason why trust in broadcasting remains much higher than that in the press.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/02/journalism_not_churnalism.html
The BBC,looking down at the plebs and half the story..
@ Hillhunt
You have been on since this afternoon.
Are there several of you working in shifts. Who pays you?
The Code of Practice will be a set of minimum standards designed to stop the manipulation of information that occurs at the moment on TV and radio news.
It will also require the staff who run the TV and radio news programmes to register their interests in a REGISTER OF INTERESTS. These people are part of the political process whether they like it or not. The Register will be based on the House of Commons Register of Interests which is well respected and works very well.
If one of the journalists on TV and radio news tells us something, we have an interest in knowing whether he/she has a personal or financial interest in the subject being discussed. If they want to be treated as professionals, they have to start behaving like professionals.
Political manipulation of news and information has to stop.
.
One essential fact is missing from the BBC’s coverage of the Birmingham City Council strike – the pay cuts are the result of EU directives.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7228515.stm
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/01/wages-of-in-equality.html